GMO Food

Finding the Middle Ground in Debate Over GMO Regulation

Should government policy be to favor or oppose GMOs? No.

|

carrots
Credit: micadew / photo on flickr

Earlier this week I spoke at the University of New Hampshire School of Law, thanks to an invitation from the school's Federalist Society student chapter.

My talk, "Moving Beyond Shrillness: Finding the Middle Ground in GMO Regulation," focused not on ending public debate over GMOs. The marketplace of ideas, I noted, is strong enough to withstand America's deep-seated differences of opinion over the genetic traits of sugar beets, corn, soy, and alfalfa.

Rather, I focused on the contentious debate over regulation of genetically modified crops and foods that contain them.

I began the talk by asking the students, faculty, and others present whether government policy should favor or oppose GMOs. Many students at the law school, which places a strong emphasis on intellectual property law, raised their hands in support of government policies that favor GMOs. Only one student raised her hand in support of government policies that oppose GMOs

One faculty member—as faculty members are wont to do—suggested that I was asking the wrong question.

To a point, he was correct. The problem wasn't with the question, though, but with the two answers I provided.

"Should government policy be to favor GMOs or to oppose GMOs?" I asked. I then advanced my PowerPoint slide to show what I believe is the correct answer: "No."

In other words, government policy should be neither to favor GMOs nor to oppose GMOs. This is the only fair position. Our current condition, though, broken as it is, finds a mismatched host of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that clearly favor GMOs, or that clearly oppose GMOs.

I then described a long list of proposed and existing rules that do just that.

The federal government is deeply involved in promoting GMO crops and foods, I noted. Farm subsidies send billions of dollars to farmers who plant—overwhelmingly—GMO crops. The USDA National School Lunch Program and other USDA commodity programs then buy up those GMO crops and animals that were fed those GMO crops.

In Congress, the Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act (the so-called "Dark Act") has threatened to create a vast new USDA bureaucracy that would undermine important and successful private labeling certification bodies like the Non-GMO Project, while the Farmer Assurance Provision (the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act") provided GMO farmers with insidious (and unconstitutional) protections.

While the federal government sides with GMO, states, counties, and cities around the country have largely taken the opposite tack. Vermont's unconstitutional mandatory GMO-labeling law, set to take effect on July 1—but which I am on record predicting a federal court will halt, lest I lose a bet on that date—is one terrible example. Awful bans on planting GMO crops have been adopted in counties in Oregon and Hawaii. Thankfully, each of these laws has been challenged in court.

Despite this heated climate, there's some evidence that rhetoric over GMOs might be cooling.

Longtime Monsanto critic Tom Philpott recently toured the company's headquarters in St. Louis. The Boston Globe panned a proposed GMO-labeling law in Massachusetts. And just this week, Monsanto head Hugh Grant spoke to CNN Money about his hopes the debate over GMOs will become less polarized.

I hope so, too. But I think—both as someone both who isn't in the business of selling GMO seeds and who is largely indifferent to GMO crops and foods—the more important issue is a legal and regulatory one.

I don't care if shrill voices rein in the debate over GMOs. I've seen that they carry the day in debates over dietary fat, raw milk, animal welfare, food trucks, and pretty much every other issue about which I write. They key to the GMO debate—just as with those other issues—is then to confine discussion to the marketplace of ideas. We needn't end debate over GMOs. Instead, we need to eliminate the subsidies, protections, bans, mandatory-labeling laws, and other rules which are the unjustifiable responses to shrill advocates on both sides of the debate.

With GMOs, we've mucked this up badly. Anti-GMO farmers and eaters feel under siege by companies that supply GMO seeds and foods and who influence federal lawmakers and agencies. Companies that supply GMO seeds and foods feel under siege by anti-GMO activists who influence state and local lawmakers.

What is this middle ground in GMO regulation, I asked, and how do we get there? The middle ground is fairness. In the interest of getting there, lawmakers must stop responding to the shrillest voices among us.

NEXT: How New Hampshire Plans to Spike Its Sex-Trafficking Stats

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “…lawmakers must stop responding to the shrillest voices among us.”

    But then they would have to go get a real job.

    1. Cutrine Plus

  2. OT: Nice trolling Texans. Lol. If the government worked for us instead of the other way around, the first one would win and that would be some sweet karma and yummy tears

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/04/22/tr…..lementary/

    1. One of two comments

      So people are divided over if this school should bear the name Robert E Lee but then some want the school to be named after the most evil mass murderer in history under the name “Adolf Hitler School for Friendship and Tolerance” that’s pretty f***ked up to say the least.

      How can you be a commenter on the internet and not know what trolling is?

      1. And then he fails to mention Adam Lanza’s School of Fun

        1. Pretty sure they got their beef tits very worked up, and angrily used chicken-pecking typing at 10wpm to write the reply immediately after reading the numbered list, and didn’t finish reading the rest of article. They proceeded to eat their own crunchy boogers and browsing other local news articles.

        2. No Adam Lanza School for Shooting Stars? Comedy fail. All of you.

    2. Security has been increased at the school as a precaution.

      LOL!

      1. Some of the more notable, but less voted names include:
        Adam Lanza’s School of Fun, Bee Movie, Bleeding Heart Liberal Elementary, Boaty McBoatface Elementary School, Forgetting the Past Dooms You to Repeat It Elementary, Garfunkel, Hypothetical Perfect Person Memorial Elementary School, John Cena Elementary and Schooly McSchoolerson

        Feel-good story of the year.

        1. This would make for a good weekly reason contest. I would go with [Redacted] Elementary.

          1. P(ants).S(hitters). 101

    3. Forgetting the Past Dooms You to Repeat It Elementary

      Ah, someone has good taste.

  3. The middle ground for GMO’s will end the same way it ended for tobacco. People dieing and no one going to jail. Just huge profits for the poisoners. There can be no middle ground with killers. That’s like saying a little murders is okay.

    1. Who died from eating GMOs?

      1. There are, however, people living a more difficult life and possibly dying because they are being denied the opportunity to eat more nutritious GMO foods.

        1. Seems to me like Cletus might need to be prosecuted for supporting the mass murder of billions of people.

        2. I have a friend whose husband is a leading biotechnology professor, who has personally developed amazing GMO food crops over the past 30 years. He says much of the current hullabaloo will be over in the near future, as they are now working on GMO plants in which 2 or 3 generations later, there is no GMO involved per se anymore, as the plants have now so integrated the genetics that it would be impossible to call them anything but natural and non-GMO.

          Oh, and he thinks the anti-GMO crowds of today are ridiculous, ignorant, anti-science morons.

          1. I don’t know if it’s a standard part of the curriculum, but when I took AP Bio in high school, we created glow in the dark bacteria by injecting recombinent DNA into E. Coli (IIRC, it was 10 years ago). I almost became a genetic biologist because of that experiment. Ignorance breeds fear, education breeds understanding.

          2. You don’t have any friends. You aren’t even a real person. You are a made up account that posts what you are told. And if he were a scientist, he would be on my side. science shares information. Science invites debate. Science is thorough and careful. Monsanto is none of those things Monsanto hates science. They worship profit,,,,,, hay, just like you!!!

        3. Except the food has lower food value. Yeilds are and have always been 7-%. 30% less than the promised yields. Sounds like you guys are paid to post, but not given any ammunition to fight back. Sad little trollshills.

          1. Sounds like a consensus.

      2. Look. They’re not natural. So people must be dying. Just because it hasn’t been reported doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I mean, they’re unnatural. That means they must be bad. They must.

        1. This is known.

          *nods sagely*

        2. Yes, and never mind the fact that we’ve been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.

          1. But, but, but that was like natural with like breeding and stuff! GMO food is genetically modified with technology! That makes it bad! How can it not be bad! Prove it’s not bad! You can’t! So it must be bad!

            1. But the tomatoeses have *fish jeans* in them!!!!!

              1. Fish is good for you. Yeah for the fish tomatoes!

            2. Well, except the times where we irradiated them or exposed them to carcinogens and mutagens in order to deliberately damage their DNA so we could see what would happen and whether or not there’s a useful mutation showing up.

              Which is pretty much 99% of how genetic modification has proceeded over the last several centuries.

              But don’t bother trying to tell these people that modern techniques are *safer* than the mutant food they’ve been making in the past.

              1. Hopefully, gamma rays from the next nearby supernova will kill the luddite and statist genes out of the pool.

                1. Gamma rays?

                  GMO SMASH!

            3. Corn is bad, mmkay.

          2. Yes never mind that nature has been modifying our food for thousands of years and Monsanto has been doing something entirely different for only 30 years never mind that. Never mind any of it. Don’t mind the lies. Don’t mind the data suppression. Don’t mind the misinformation your company uses to spin the message. Never mind all of that. never minds the bodies most of all. After all, you got a new Nissan!!

      3. Middle ground? Middle gnd is, GMO-eaters should be allowed to eat Frankenfoods, non-GMO-eaters should be allowed to avoid any cooties that they do NOT believe in? Of course, that means we MUST have Government-Almighty-mandated LABELS about, who DOES and who DOES NOT have frankenfoods squirrelled away into their mixes of fuds?!?!
        Also, though, I as a Scienfoologist? To larn mur about Scienfoology, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com ? I as a Devout Scienfoologist, believe that I should have LABELS cluing me in on, has this fud, or haz it not, been LOOKED AT by non-Scienfoologists, at any time during its growing, being eaten by meat animals, preparation, packaging, and delivery? ‘Cause, ya know, my “feelings” as a Devout Scienfoologist, despite the lack of ANY evidence that my foods being looked at by non-Scienfoologists, deprives them of nutrients or degrades my health? That kinda puts me on the same level as the anti-Frankenfood crowd, right? So MY feelings should matter as much as THEIR feelings? Oh-Tay?!?!?!?! WHERE’S MUH LABELS?!?!?!

        1. You know who else thought that everything needed to be labelled?

          1. Little 4-year-old OCD me, when I got my hands on a label maker?

            1. Did you label the label maker? If not, you weren’t serious.

        2. Commodity contracts were allowed to be corrupted many years ago. Technically, it wasn’t GMO’s that created the problem. It was hybrids. But it creates a fraud in the market.

          Pre-hybrids, purchase of a grain contract was purchase of a grain that could be used for either food or for seed. Granted most farmers chose which seeds to save for seed before it was sent to silo – but the contract itself had the utility of both purposes. Once hybrids were allowed to settle commodity contracts, that contract could no longer be used for seed. That is a reduction in utility for that commodity. And with seed company lawsuits, even a few hybrid grains in the contract become a dangerous weed for non-hybrid farmers – grow it and you risk a lawsuit and loss of your farm. Non-hybrid grains were forced out of the commodity grain biz by lawsuits and ‘contract pollution’ – not by the actions of a free market.

          What should have happened then is that grain contracts should have been redefined – one type for food, one for either food or seed. Much like oil commodity contracts are. A free market can then use price to discover/equilibrate value – rather than the market itself driving the non-connected out of business.

      4. That’s exactly what so many said in 1048 when doctors were telling my mother that cigarettes were not only safe, but healthy. That they helped nerves. And ” No one has ever died from a cigarette.” Just like you, they made stupid statements about products that are already listed as carcinogens. Just like you they were paid to say that these poisons were safe. And just like then, millions of cancer patients are dying from undiagnoses illnesses caused by pesticides and glyphosphates. From contact with genetic material designed to destroy the fauna in our digestive tract. All those dead people, so carefully covered up and deadly products so skillfully glossed over so that you can get a few extra dollars at the end of the month.

    2. Whut?

      Who died?

        1. Of what country?

      1. You’ve never seen a tomacco addled cow trying to score?

    3. Cletus|4.23.16 @ 9:14AM|#
      “…That’s like saying a little murders is okay.”

      Guessing troll, since not many luddites claim ‘killer’, just one disease or the other.

      1. Maybe. But killer is the next progression…

      2. Little murders? Abortion?

    4. NOT PROFITS!!! NO???~!!!!!! PROFIT IS WORSER THAN DEATH!!

      1. How does one get into the murdering for profit industry? Apprenticeships? Degree from Koch U? Asking for a friend

        1. With a degree from Kochtopus U, you can go big time and murder the entire planet, for fun and profit!

    5. GMO’s killed my mamma. They killed poppa too.

    6. Hard to know whether this is a veritable moron or a troll using a handle like “Cletus.”

    7. Didn’t you get the memo? Little murders are ok, you just relabel them as something else.

      Eh, troll is troll. I’ll skip this ‘debate’ ^_-

  4. that rhetoric over GMOs might be cooling

    Everyone has moved on to transgender bathroom rights.

    1. The transgender bathroom debate is nothing compared to the transgender high school gym showers debate brewing.

      1. And the associated movie.

        1. What’s that? None of us has one of those? Can we touch it? What’s it doing?

          1. I can wash my cock as fast as I want.

    2. “Everyone has moved on to transgender bathroom rights.”

      “Tens of thousands of people are calling for a Target boycott”
      […]
      “More than 182,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Target after the retailer said it would welcome transgender customers to use any bathroom or fitting room that matches their gender identity.”
      http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..296163.php

      Prolly one person 182,000 times.

      1. If the Target corporation wants to have unisex bathrooms (and that’s what this amounts to), that’s their prerogative. You can either shop there or not.

        I don’t see this as a good reason to boycott, but the boycotters have the right idea – they don’t like a business’s policies so they won’t shop there, problem solved.

        They won’t call the police to shut down the store or bankrupt it with fines or legal fees, simply because its policies aren’t to the liking of entitled activists.

        1. If Target wants to send up a social signaling flare, they can’t complain if they draw social signaling flares in response.

          Now, if Target had just said “We haven’t really had any problems with single-sex bathrooms up til now, in terms of complaints from customers or staff, so we really don’t see any reason to change anything. We expect that some transgender folks are using the “other” bathroom, but if so, they are keeping a low profile, as we would expect of good and decent people using the bathroom. We’ll respond to complaints from our customers and staff, if any come in, on a case by case basis.”

          I would say that a boycott from either side was kind of silly. But Target decided to play the stupid game, and seems to be winning stupid prizes.

          1. Or better yet, keep their mouth shut – assuming activists aren’t going around and demanding to know everyone’s bathroom policy.

            1. It’s derp on all sides of this issue. Target invited this by playing Kulturkampf, and the idiot socon culture warriors predictably overreacted.

              1. “Target invited this by playing Kulturkampf”

                They are not playing. They swallow these cultural values hook line and sinker. Just like the rest of corporate America.

                1. I blame millennials

                  1. “I blame millennials”

                    There’s a whole bunch of people the age of Dick Cheney who have been pioneers in the movement for gay inclusivity. People like him and the Target board members are hardly millennials.

                2. Nothing trueman posts is any more trustworthy than random letters on a ‘fridge door.

                3. Nothing trueman posts is any more trustworthy than random letters on a ‘fridge door.

                  1. However, there’s a whole bunch of people the age of Dick Cheney who have been pioneers in the movement for gay inclusivity. People like him and the Target board members are hardly millennials.

                4. Nothing trueman posts is any more trustworthy than random letters on a ‘fridge door.

  5. I had a bizarre dream last night that edible, gigantic football-sized land snails were taking over some locale with lush vegetation – they were just everywhere. I was hunting one of the snails , attached to an aluminum light pole, with a machete. I knocked the shell of one pretty hard with the dull edge of the machete, failing to get it to respond for a while, until it raised its head and revealed hundreds of yellow cartoonish eyes that looked like comic book-style drawn sprites superimposed on reality.

    i approached my sometimes ovo-lacto vegetarian-but-mostly vegan uncle on the top of a building, supervising a youth sports game on real grass turf. I asked him if he was still a vegan and wanted to eat some giant snail. He declined to partake.

    1. Agile, is that you?

    2. Dreams are awesome, especially when remembered with such vivid detail.

    3. That’s entertaining.

      I don’t remember my dreams, and haven’t for years. I expect that being a libertarian has killed all my dreams.

      1. I only remember my dreams when I drink.

  6. “Awful bans on planting GMO crops have been adopted in counties in Oregon and Hawaii.”

    Where are the studies showing that GMOs harm humans? What, there are none? Why does the left hate science? I freaking love science, man!

    1. Well, there is your problem. You don’t fucking love science.

      1. It’s just that I don’t think science means the same thing as consensus means. I think that’s because scientists keep getting proven wrong about their consensus. Even Einstein was wrong about quantum entanglement.

        1. Quite true. But consensus is (or should be) a way to see what theories are likely to be correct. Of course, sometimes they turn out to be wrong. But for the most part, the consensus among scientists is a good guide to which theory most likely works. The word was kind of ruined by people manipulating data to make it look like there was a stronger consensus on the causes and effects of climate change than there really is.

          1. No.

  7. Despite this heated climate

    I see, Reason’s joining the climate cult. But they know they can’t just start preaching it to libertarians. So they’re embedding subliminal messages into the articles!

  8. STEVE SMITH WANNA KNOW WHEN THEY PASS GENETICALLY MODIFIED SASQUATCH PROTECTION BILL?

    1. STEVE SMITH NEED NO BATHROOM LAW. STEVE SMITH PEE IN BUSH.

  9. How about hauling the anti GMO people that claim harm from GMO’s to court. Hit them with liable and fraud and make them defend their claims with proof. In my dreams ‘ climate change’ promoters would be in the court house next door. Show us the proof beyond a reasonable doubt.A man can dream.

    1. Waste of time. There is no proof and they know it. It’s hilarious to watch these champions of peer reviewed research carry around a book proving that ‘GMOs bad, mmmkay!’ written by some charlatan with the academic credentials and reputation of a three year old scrawling in chalk, like it’s their bible.

    2. Meanwhile in the real world, climate change “deniers” are being taken to court. So I’m thinking it’s practically (and probably legally) better to keep scientific disagreements out of court.

      1. They are trying to destroy peoples businesses and jobs though.Maybe the courts are the proper venue.Line up the sides,show them for what they are.

  10. Thankfully, each of these laws has been challenged in court.

    Which is fantastic if you have millions of bucks set aside and a legal team on retainer. That means laws that impact the wealthy get challenged, but the rest of us shitbags get told to shut up and color when we get fucked with.

    I have a proposal. Any law enacted and subsequently found unconstitutional, the sponsor of that law is immediately put to death?

    1. That’s just mean. Tar and feathers, then the pillory with free baskets of rotten fruit for the spectators.

      Also, above the pillory on a plague are written the words ‘I freaking hate science!’.

      1. Plaque. Plague is also mean…

      2. Yeah, death is a little extreme, but I’m down with tarring and feathering.

          1. No shit.

            If someone is going to make an oath to the constitution, let them keep it or die.

    2. That means laws that impact the wealthy get challenged, but the rest of us shitbags get told to shut up and color when we get fucked with.

      Welcome to…all of human history.

      1. Yeah, but wasn’t that whole Revolution, Founding Fathers, Declaration of Independence, Constitutional Republic thingy supposed to put a dent in that?

        1. Old white men who owned slaves, 100 years old, written in a language no one can even read today.

  11. I’m calling for the prosecution and imprisonment of all GMO deniers.

    1. No matter what it is that they deny.

  12. I wasn’t aware there’s a debate. I thought the science is settled. Any of y’all want to explain why there’s debate when scientists have reached a consensus? Or why these people put more faith in a con artist like Vandana Shiva than actual scientific literature? These are supposed to be the smarties. They Fucking Love Science.

    1. There is a debate because people are superstitious and gullible and have a weird and inconsistent fetish for things that are “natural”.

      1. Sleeping in your bed in heated soft comfort, or AC-cooled comfort, is not natural. Channeling PJ O’Rourke, I see that sleeping in the grass in your back yard, and letting the bugs bite yer butt ***IS*** natural! Are the nature-lovers sleeping in their beds at night, like hypocrites? Or are they letting the bugs bite their butts?

    2. There is a consensus. Just not the consensus they want.

    3. “I thought the science is settled. Any of y’all want to explain why there’s debate when scientists have reached a consensus?”

      You read too much Reason. The science is not settled. The long-term effects of a GMO diet on humans have not been studied. Got a few million to spare? Maybe you could conduct such a study yourself!

      1. Uhm, really?

        You eat corn?

        Tomatoes?

        Beef?

        All genetically engineered.

        1. You eat corn? Tomatoes? Beef?

          Yes to two, no to one. People have been eating all 3 for centuries. Long term effects are fairly well understood.

      2. “The long-term effects of a GMO diet on humans have not been studied.”

        Define “long-term”; there have been zero negative effects, other than ignoramuses whining about studying “long-term effects”

        1. Define “long-term”

          You put up the money and you can define long term any way your heart desires.

          1. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 9:15PM|#
            “You put up the money and you can define long term any way your heart desires.”

            Stupid or dishonest?
            Both…

            1. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Sound familiar?

              1. Got it: Stupid and dishonest. Sound familiar?

                1. You misunderstand. You commission the study, you set the terms. I can’t state it any more simply.

  13. Get the government out of food and let people decide what they want.

    1. Why do you hate the children and want the terrorists to win?

      1. The children ARE the terrorists. Get with the program!

        1. Only when they’re not busy polishing a monocle. We need a law to ensure full time employment for children.

        2. GMOs = Genetically Modified Orphans

          1. I’m liking this idea. give them 7 fingers on each hand.

    2. “… let people decide what they want.”

      Just as long as GMO remains unlabelled.

      1. No, as long as the government doesn’t *mandate or forbid* labeling.

        1. The makers presumably know whether or not the food the produce contains GMO. If the buyers don’t know, for whatever reason, they can’t make an informed choice. This is why government is involved.

          1. Let’s be honest – people are dumb.

            Ordinarily that would be okay, but we’re talking about tens of millions of people potentially starving to death because of the GMO bogeyman.

            We’ve already basically seen that in Africa, where farmers are afraid to use GMO stuff because Europe won’t buy any of their potential surplus.

            1. “Let’s be honest – people are dumb.”

              It’s not illegal to be dumb or superstitious. Even so, don’t underestimate people’s ability to survive and prosper on a Monsanto free diet.

              1. And, there’s your real reason you are anti-GMO, and it’s the same reason so many people are. It’s not that you fear the food, which deep down you must know is safe. You just don’t want to permit anything that a Korporashun like Monsanto might ‘profit’ from, that’s evil!

                1. ” there’s your real reason you are anti-GMO”

                  Whatever my reasons, whether you approve of them or not is immaterial. It comes down to the buyer’s ability to make an informed choice. In what kind of market place is GMO possible? One where the buyer remains in ignorance and the government supports with endless subsidies, hardly something supposed free marketers would like.

                  1. “In what kind of market place is GMO possible? One where the buyer remains in ignorance and the government supports with endless subsidies, hardly something supposed free marketers would like.”

                    Lies, and misdirection as per normal.
                    GMO food are no limited to ‘ignorant’ markets; I and others buy them knowing full well they are GMO.
                    And your claims that subsidies are somehow aimed at GMO products is one more demonstration of your ignorance.

                  2. It comes down to the buyer’s ability to make an informed choice.

                    You’ve gotta come back with something better than that. There are so many avenues that I could go down, such as:

                    1) Income tax withholding should be banned under your reasoning.
                    2) There are a bazillion preferences a buyer can legitimately have, so where are you putting the mile-long warning label?
                    3) The market has already allowed the buyer to make an informed choice, not only through websites that tell you what to buy or not to buy, but also through voluntary “GMO-free” labeling
                    4) By crowding the packaging with unnecessary information, you actually disable the buyer by de-emphasizing other important information, such as allergy information.
                    5) There is no “right” to an informed choice. If something like GMO is so important to a consumer, they have avenues to collect information, but they are not owed that information. They always have the choice to either buy from trusted sellers or grow their own food.
                    6) Intentionally requiring fear-mongering labeling on food is not giving consumers an informed choice, but obstructing that choice through emotional manipulation.

                    This is a choose your own adventure, which one of these arguments do you want to trip on first?

                    1. “There are so many avenues that I could go down, such as:”

                      Choose one and argue it. I can’t be bothered to read your list of half bake platitudes.

                    2. None of them are half-baked. They’re all fully fleshed out, and neatly summarized above. Again, it’s a choose your own adventure. All you have to do is pick a number between 1 and 6. It’s not much harder than “Spot the Not,” except that I eviscerate your “logic” after you choose a number.

                    3. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 9:17PM|#
                      “I can’t be bothered to read your list of half bake platitudes.”

                      Nor to support your un-informed claims.

                    4. Come on. these are idiotic.
                      1) True or false, irrelevant.
                      2) a bazillion preferences a buyer can legitimately have – who’s to say when a buyer’s preference is legitimate?
                      3) a label is easier than memorizing the contents of websites
                      4) “unnecessary information” – again who’s to say? I don’t care too much about GMO, but given the choice I’d go for GMO over allergy alerts any time.
                      5)”There is no “right” to an informed choice” – true, but a sound market is characterized by transparency. That’s why a free press is so important in a capitalist economy.
                      6) ” obstructing that choice through emotional manipulation.” – Advertising was always a sleazy business, wasn’t it?

                    5. Now you expect someone else to support claims? Fucking hypocrite.

                    6. It’s not the hypocrisy that gets me, it’s the fact that he’s undermining his own argument in almost every one of his responses.

                      who’s to say when a buyer’s preference is legitimate?

                      “unnecessary information” – again who’s to say?

                      Thanks, mtrueman, for making my point for me. When you can come back with some semi-serious answers to your own question, we can talk about GMO labeling.

                    7. “When you can come back with some semi-serious answers to your own question”

                      Think you can handle a full on balls to the walls serious answer? How about “not me.” That’s a responsibility I neither want nor feel I have the ability to carry out, nor do I feel comfortable in giving this responsibility readily to unknown others.

                    8. Think you can handle a full on balls to the walls serious answer? How about “not me.” That’s a responsibility I neither want nor feel I have the ability to carry out, nor do I feel comfortable in giving this responsibility readily to unknown others.

                      Holy shit, a passing bout of lucidity! I have to applaud you on this, because I wrote you off a while ago. Here comes the endgame question:

                      Who, among fallible man, is more able than you to tell you when your preferences are legitimate or not?

                    9. “Who, among fallible man, is more able than you to tell you when your preferences are legitimate or not?”

                      You want their names? What exactly do you plan to do with this information?

                    10. You want their names? What exactly do you plan to do with this information?

                      I was hoping to get them to give you a visit and maybe try hitting your reset button. Maybe a good purge of the memory banks would help this whole “really bad at trolling” thing you’ve got going on.

                    11. “Think you can handle a full on balls to the walls serious answer? How about “not me.” That’s a responsibility I neither want nor feel I have the ability to carry out, nor do I feel comfortable in giving this responsibility readily to unknown others.”
                      So, you have bullshit and nothing other? Presumed. Pathetic.

                    12. “So, you have bullshit and nothing other? Presumed. Pathetic.”

                      You seem to disapprove, yet are reluctant to come out and say so. Again, there’s no need to be coy.

                    13. “Again, there’s no need to be coy.”

                      OK, you’re a lying piece of shit.

                    14. I know. Nothing more to add?

  14. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

  15. Farm subsidies send billions of dollars to farmers who plant?overwhelmingly?GMO crops.

    Wut? So the subsidies would end if they planted non-GMO crops? No? Then it’s not a relevant point, is it? I agree with the premise of this piece, but the reasoning throughout reads like a bad trip. It was all down hill after the subhead.

    Try again.

    1. What is wrong with appealing to the little spark of libertarianism in everyone?

  16. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ============= http://www.richi8.com

  17. The federal government is deeply involved in promoting GMO crops and foods, I noted. Farm subsidies send billions of dollars to farmers who plant?overwhelmingly?GMO crops. The USDA National School Lunch Program and other USDA commodity programs then buy up those GMO crops and animals that were fed those GMO crops.

    I don’t think either of those programs is GMO specific. Saying that this is support for GMOs seems inapt – its support for food, much of which happens, for completely unrelated reasons, to be GMO.

    I’m not entirely clear that IP is really all that important to GMO crops, either (it isn’t called out in the article, but I’ve seen the argument made). My impression is that there is something like a EULA when you get Monsanto seed, that you won’t try to turn it into a seed crop for re-use or re-sale, which is pretty much straight contracting without the need for IP.

    There’s a tone of government support for farming

    1. I’m not entirely clear that IP is really all that important to GMO crops, either (it isn’t called out in the article, but I’ve seen the argument made). My impression is that there is something like a EULA when you get Monsanto seed, that you won’t try to turn it into a seed crop for re-use or re-sale, which is pretty much straight contracting without the need for IP.

      The IP is mostly to protect against competitors. The seed license would likely be a trade secret license (so that it’s not limited to damages within the patent term).

    2. “which is pretty much straight contracting without the need for IP”

      It’s related to IP issues. Files can be copied without limit much like seeds from naturally occurring sources. Monsanto and the software giants both have an interest in curbing our rights to do with our property as we wish. ie copy our files or plant our seeds.

  18. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ============= http://www.richi8.com

  19. I dunno. I think the danger of doing nothing is that people will panic hysterically and millions of people will end up starving to death because white middle class liberals can afford to eat “organic” and think everyone else should, too.

    1. “that people will panic hysterically”

      Before that happens, people will elect legislators who promise to do their bidding. Buyers will always outnumber sellers and in a democracy that counts for something. GMO’s biggest problem is in the market place. There is no demand for GMO food.

      1. There is no demand for GMO food.

        Then why the hell are people legislating against it? I get that you’re an ignoramus and all, but if there’s no demand for GMO food, then nobody is buying GMO food. Why the hell do we need to label a product that literally nobody buys???

        Either be more precise in your language so that you make a sensible point, or get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.

        1. “Then why the hell are people legislating against it?”

          I figure it’s because they want it labelled do they can avoid it. Though some may want it labelled because they desire it. I’d say the later are a much smaller group and aren’t behind this push to mandate labelling.

          “but if there’s no demand for GMO food, then nobody is buying GMO food”

          People are buying GMO food whether they demand it or not.

          “Either be more precise in your language so that you make a sensible point, or get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.”

          Apologies if you are unsatisfied.

          1. People are buying GMO food whether they demand it or not.

            ROFL. Demand, as an economic concept (e.g. “there’s no demand for GMO food”) is entirely unrelated to some consumer demanding to have something because of a feature. Just because I don’t demand that mayonnaise be on my burger doesn’t mean that there is no demand for burgers with mayo.

            Similarly, just because I don’t demand that my tomatoes are GMO doesn’t mean that there is no demand for GMO tomatoes.

            Now that we’ve cleared that up, what was your point?

            1. ” just because I don’t demand that my tomatoes are GMO doesn’t mean that there is no demand for GMO tomatoes.”

              The question comes down to whether a GMO label would increase sales or decrease them. Monsanto are not idiots. They have a pretty good idea what the demand for their product is.

              1. “The question comes down to whether a GMO label would increase sales or decrease them. Monsanto are not idiots. They have a pretty good idea what the demand for their product is.”

                See below, idjit.

              2. The question comes down to whether a GMO label would increase sales or decrease them.

                Okay, using your criterion, let’s label food made by crunchy hippies as “proudly made by atheists.” All that matters is whether sales will increase or decrease, so obviously crunchy hippies shouldn’t be making food, because they’re going to lose sales based on that label.

                Again, you’ve not made a point. What’s your point?

                1. T, he’s arguing against Monsanto; they make no food.

                  1. Is he? Frankly, I can’t get a coherent position statement out of him, so I was having fun knocking out his few semi-coherent sentences while needling him about not having a point.

                    1. Pretty sure we have the typical luddite ‘Monsanto bad unatural something PROFITS!’ here, even though trueman will do back flips trying to avoid admitting it.
                      Now, if he were really serious about companies that make food and GMO labeling, Bing promptly tossed up 3,900,000 results, such as:
                      “ConAgra Foods and Kellogg’s Join Growing Number of Companies Voluntarily Labeling GMOs”
                      http://www.activistpost.com/20…..-gmos.html

                    2. Pretty sure we have the typical luddite ‘Monsanto bad unatural something PROFITS!’ here, even though trueman will do back flips trying to avoid admitting it.

                      Probably. I used to interact with those types on a regular basis on social media (I’m a gardener/homesteader/prepper type), so I’ve become numb to Monsanto being used as a pejorative.

                2. let’s label food made by crunchy hippies as “proudly made by atheists.”

                  Let me know when there’s a legislative push for such a label. Read my comment, People are not going to panic, they are going to go for legislation. Either that or the industry will come around to embrace voluntary labelling, maybe with some prodding by their government benefactors.

                  1. Let me know when there’s a legislative push for such a label.

                    Irrelevant. Either your logic can stand up to being applied in a different situation, or your position is of no consequence.

                    Read my comment, People are not going to panic, they are going to go for legislation.

                    “There should be a law” isn’t panicking? What about when people just want a legislative solution for labeling bathrooms in NC?

                    1. “There should be a law” isn’t panicking? ”

                      Legislators legislate. Or threaten to. They have votes to win and donations to collect.

                    2. Legislators legislate. Or threaten to. They have votes to win and donations to collect.

                      Bananas are yellow. Or brown. Or sometimes green. I’ve seen monkeys eat bananas, and it’s kinda gross.

                  2. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 9:22PM|#
                    “Let me know when there’s a legislative push for such a label.”
                    Irrelevant, and anyone with a 12th grade ed would know that.

                    “People are not going to panic, they are going to go for legislation.”
                    Assertion, again absent evidence. Par for the course; can be ignored

                    “Either that or the industry will come around to embrace voluntary labelling, maybe with some prodding by their government benefactors.”
                    You ignored the evidence I presented above; the companies are labeling absent pressure, and again, you conflate ag subsidies with subsidies for GMOs.
                    Is that because you are stupid? Or dishonest?

                    1. Stick to moronic insults.

                    2. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 9:39PM|#
                      “Stick to moronic insults.”

                      Once more, no evidence for any claim you made? So, you’re done trying to even make idiotic claims?
                      The best you can offer now is the claim the the insults you so richly deserve are somehow ‘moronic’?
                      Go get ’em, trueman! BTW, I wouldn’t link this in your pathetic blog; those who somehow end up there might see your name in better surroundings, but hardly anyone is impressed with an inability to back any claim at all.

                    3. ” the companies are labeling absent pressure,”

                      Not so sure. This article wouldn’t be published unless someone was feeling pressured.

                    4. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 10:10PM|#
                      “Not so sure. This article wouldn’t be published unless someone was feeling pressured.”

                      Opinions; everyone has one.
                      Ignoramuses presume the represent an argument.

                    5. “Opinions; everyone has one.”

                      Only my opinion seems to irk you for some reason. Yours, I really aren’t interested.

                    6. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 10:41PM|#
                      “Only my opinion seems to irk you for some reason.”

                      No, the fact that you have zero evidence to support them irks me, and you are either too stupid or too dishonest to understand that.
                      Or both, probably; you’ve never shown much honesty or intelligence here.

                    7. Frankly, it’s not even the zero evidence that irks me. It’s the fact that he runs around a comment section like an ADHD riddled kid, jumping from one thing to another, not staying long enough to actually make a cogent point. It’s like he enjoys trying to point to each comment and say “nuh-unh,” but doesn’t want to bother with sticking around to explain why.

                      It’s either really bad trolling or a combination of mental instability and low IQ.

                    8. Having watched the shitbag for several years, I’m guessing it’s a passable IQ with a mommy who said ‘your smart’, and (further guessing) trueman has inherited enough such that he is not required to ‘earn money’.
                      I’ve never had a boss who would deal with that sort of dishonesty and give me a paycheck.

                    9. Having watched the shitbag for several years, I’m guessing it’s a passable IQ with a mommy who said ‘your smart’, and (further guessing) trueman has inherited enough such that he is not required to ‘earn money’.

                      I’m getting more of a sense that it’s all an act. There’s no actual argument, it’s just blind contrarianism. I could say that the sky is blue, and he’d respond back with “what about at night, you fucking moron???”

                      Either he’s a regular that gets his jollies off on being a contrarian while shitfaced, or he’s somebody who is maladjusted enough to spend years spewing semi-coherent pablum on a hostile website while consistently missing his ADHD meds. I lean toward the sockpuppet theory, mainly because if he were actually that maladjusted, he would’ve tried to dox one or more of us by now. I guess a third theory is that he’s 11, but that seems a bit stupid.

                    10. “Either he’s a regular that gets his jollies off on being a contrarian while shitfaced, or he’s somebody who is maladjusted enough to spend years spewing semi-coherent pablum on a hostile website while consistently missing his ADHD meds.”

                      I think you’re too complimentary.
                      He’s got a blog that I looked at once. He pretends to some knowledge and shows up here hoping it’ll lend importance to his blog.
                      He’s simply a pretty dumb piece of shit who shows up and hopes that people are fooled. Not to beat on you, but you tried to ‘engage’ him until it became obvious he hasn’t the knowledge to engage most anyone here; he hopes someone will fall for his sophistry.

                    11. Not to beat on you, but you tried to ‘engage’ him until it became obvious he hasn’t the knowledge to engage most anyone here; he hopes someone will fall for his sophistry.

                      I’m the eternal optimist. I tried having conversations with Bo long after everybody else had given up on him.

  20. And frankly, who cares what the anti-GMO people think? They’re morons, like anti-vaccine people. Catering to them only hurts the rest of humanity, and it won’t really be them paying the price, it will be the poor,

    1. ” who cares what the anti-GMO people think?”

      Monsanto cares. Very much. If they thought that labelling food “Contains GMO products” increased their sales, they would have labelled voluntarily. They are a business, after all.

      1. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 6:40PM|#
        “Monsanto cares. Very much. If they thought that labelling food “Contains GMO products” increased their sales, they would have labelled voluntarily.”

        Speaking of twits pretending to knowledge, here we have trueman demonstrating his lack of knowledge of fact and of business matters.
        First, you ninny, Monsanto doesn’t *MAKE* any food it could label.
        Secondly, why would any business put any label on any product that might make some buyers nervous?
        What an ignoramus….

        1. “First, you ninny, Monsanto doesn’t *MAKE* any food it could label.”

          Doesn’t make them care any less.

          “Secondly, why would any business put any label on any product that might make some buyers nervous?”

          Because it would increase confidence in more buyers.

          1. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 9:11PM|#
            “Doesn’t make them care any less.”
            Move that gola-post asshole!

            “Because it would increase confidence in more buyers.”
            Claims are not arguments; they need evidence and you have yet to offer one bit of evidence for any of the claims you’ve ever made.
            I’ll bet this is no different.

            1. ” and you have yet to offer one bit of evidence ”

              I don’t owe you anything. Haven’t you got that clear yet? You’re more than welcome to dig up any evidence on your own and I don’t ask that you share with me what, if anything, you find.

              1. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 10:47PM|#
                “Idon’t owe you anything.”

                You stupid shit, it’s not ME you owe that to, it’s your rep!
                You have become the ignoramus who shows up, makes wild claims and then states that it is the responsibility of others to support those claims.
                If you don’t know how pathetic that makes your statements, I really can’t help you.

                1. “If you don’t know how pathetic that makes your statements, I really can’t help you.”

                  Tell you what, you just keep worrying about my rep. It concerns you much more than it does me.

                  1. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 11:32AM|#
                    “Tell you what, you just keep worrying about my rep. It concerns you much more than it does me.”

                    I don’t give a shit about your rep; I’m just telling you why you are held in such contempt here. Hint: It’s due to your stupidity.

  21. “Move that gola-post asshole!”

    Gola posts are for kids.

    “Claims are not arguments; ”

    If you disagree with my claim, you’re more than welcome to say so.

    1. If you disagree with my claim, you’re more than welcome to say so.

      Reality disagrees with your claim

      Gola posts are for kids.

      It’s called an informal fallacy. At best, it means that you’re losing the argument. More often, it means you’re a liar.

      1. “It’s called an informal fallacy. At best, it means that you’re losing the argument. More often, it means you’re a liar.”

        You’ve now given trueman a piece of information he will immediately copy and reuse in the hopes that someone might be fooled into thinking he’s as knowledgeable as you.
        But, like all the other ‘knowledge’ he parrots from others, he’ll have no way to cite evidence for that claim, either.

        1. It’s just a bunch of non-sequitur and jousting. On some level, I get the allure of trolling, but to do such a shitty job of it either means that trueman legitimately has an 85 IQ, or he’s a sockpuppet of somebody who doesn’t feel like trying too hard.

          I like to engage the trolls when they engage back at a somewhat sentient level. Only on rare occasion (like tonight) do I like to engage the trolls when they’re hardly able to pass the turing test. It’s like creating the perfect football team on Madden and tearing through the league on easy mode.

      2. Exactly which “argument” I’ve made offends you so much and why? You’ll have to be more forthcoming if you want to engage. Otherwise I’ll assume you’re just trying to give our Sevo a run for his money in the inane bluster department.

        1. Exactly which “argument” I’ve made offends you so much and why?

          So far, I haven’t seen much of an argument at all. I’ve seen a few claims and a few predictions, but you’re all over the place. I’m not at all offended, I’m just trying to get you to engage on a level where you’ll actually make an argument/claim and stick with it long enough to explain why it’s a good thing.

          Otherwise I’ll assume you’re just trying to give our Sevo a run for his money in the inane bluster department.

          I admit that I’m having some fun needling you, but you make it so easy!

        2. GMO’s biggest problem is in the market place. There is no demand for GMO food.

          Let’s start here, since you want to focus on an argument. You make a semi-economic argument that there is a marketplace issue with GMOs and that there is no demand for GMO food.

          Buyers will always outnumber sellers and in a democracy that counts for something.

          Then, optionally, let’s try to figure out what this means, because I’m having a hard time understanding this sentence.

            1. I’m happy to take baby steps to get to something. Either mtrueman will actually engage, or we’ll have something to hang over his head like we do with Shreek. By chopping it up into bite sized chunks, I’m hoping that mtrueman will take the challenge and engage with me on a level playing field. He’s got nothing to lose by doing that, except a bit of pride.

              If he doesn’t engage with me, I’ll keep this thread bookmarked, and follow him around H&R, reminding him of how he asked to engage in a simple discussion over one argument, and couldn’t even follow through.

              1. “Either mtrueman will actually engage, or we’ll have something to hang over his head like we do with Shreek.”

                Unfortunately, I can’t find the quote, but his final defense, after his contradictory comments box him in on all sides, ends up being:
                ‘Yes, I’m a hypocrite but I’m not posting here for what YOU think!’
                I’ve been hanging that on him for over a year, and he simply agrees, or gripes that I quote him.
                Again, good luck.

              2. And see below for an example of weaseling; he’s not real smart, but he’s very slimy.

          1. “You make a semi-economic argument…”

            Not being a semi-economist, I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree.

            “there is no demand for GMO food.”

            The demand comes from corporate and government bureaucrats who’ve been pushing GMO for years. It doesn’t come from consumers. Food producers are not shy about informing consumers about features of food (Vitamin C added!) when there’s a demand in the market place for these features. In fact they spend millions in advertising to do do.

            “because I’m having a hard time understanding this sentence.”

            Give it a little more time. I’m not rushing you.

            1. Thanks for engaging.

              The demand comes from corporate and government bureaucrats who’ve been pushing GMO for years. It doesn’t come from consumers.

              What difference does it make if the demand comes from corporations and government bureaucrats instead of consumers? Why should that change my mind about GMO labeling?

              1. “What difference does it make if the demand comes from corporations and government bureaucrats instead of consumers?”

                Ask one of your semi-economist friends that one.

                “Why should that change my mind about GMO labeling?”

                No ones asked you to change your mind about this. I don’t know where you stand and I’m not interested.

                1. Ask one of your semi-economist friends that one.

                  No ones asked you to change your mind about this. I don’t know where you stand and I’m not interested.

                  You’re a boring troll… at least the fun ones try to act like they want to have a discussion before shitting all over everything.

                  1. BTW, here’s a real winner!

                    “The demand comes from corporate and government bureaucrats who’ve been pushing GMO for years. It doesn’t come from consumers.”

                    Hey, shitbag, ever hear of Golden Rice?
                    “Golden rice is a variety of rice (Oryza sativa) produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of rice.[1] It is intended to produce a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A,[2] a deficiency which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under the age of 5 each year.[3]”
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

                    Yep, only government (which you otherwise love; hoping it will FORCE the labeling of GMOs) and corporations desire that 670,000 kids per year live past the age of five. Them and their parents? Shitbags like trueman don’t care!
                    There are slimy individuals who are such by stupidity, but you do so by the combination of stupidity and hubris.
                    Fucking asshole…

                    1. “Hey, shitbag, ever hear of Golden Rice?”

                      Yes, from idiots like you. I know East Asia fairly well and shopped in a lot of shops there. I’ve never seen yellow rice for sale and I’ve never heard a customer asking for yellow rice. They prefer white rice, and that’s what they demand. There is no demand for yellow rice.

                    2. Yes, from idiots like you. I know East Asia fairly well and shopped in a lot of shops there. I’ve never seen yellow rice for sale and I’ve never heard a customer asking for yellow rice. They prefer white rice, and that’s what they demand. There is no demand for yellow rice.

                      See what I mean?

                      [Obligatory insult] [Unverifiable assertion aimed at creating credibility][Anecdotal non-sequitur][non-sequitur claim][insane conclusion]

                      There’s nothing here but blind contrarianism. Nowhere does he actually address the issue at hand. He’s marginally more on topic than anonbot usually is. I haven’t worked in AI for a while, but it wouldn’t shock me if the state of the art could produce similar responses. I’d call it contrarianbot.

                    3. “Nowhere does he actually address the issue at hand.”

                      Labelling yellow rice is unnecessary. It may be necessary to require packagers of yellow rice to mandatory use of transparent packaging. (So you can see the colour.)

                    4. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “Labelling yellow rice is unnecessary. It may be necessary to require packagers of yellow rice to mandatory use of transparent packaging. (So you can see the colour.)”

                      Is that bullshit word salad supposed to excuse you from promoting the deaths of hndreds of thousands of kids?
                      How pathetic are you? Or how stupid are you?

                    5. Long term studies are just in. You don’t die from eating white rice.

                    6. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 1:15AM|#
                      “Long term studies are just in. You don’t die from eating white rice.”

                      Asshole trueman has no cite for claim leading to thousands of deaths, thinks that’s OK, since trueman is a piece of shit.
                      Thanks, piece of shit!

                    7. ” leading to thousands of deaths”

                      Only thousands now? A few minutes ago it was hundreds of thousands. And before that it was millions. At this rate the problem should sort itself out within the next 24 hours.

                    8. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 1:51AM|#
                      “Only thousands now? A few minutes ago it was hundreds of thousands.”

                      I’m sure your mom thinks that’s clever, asshole.
                      Joking about thousands of deaths is exactly what I would expect of one devoid of any sort of ethical behavior.

                    9. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “Labelling yellow rice is unnecessary. It may be necessary to require packagers of yellow rice to mandatory use of transparent packaging. (So you can see the colour.)”

                      Thank you for proving “Nowhere does he actually address the issue at hand.”

                    10. Trshmnstr, terror of the trash|4.24.16 @ 12:16AM|#
                      “There’s nothing here but blind contrarianism.”
                      And the hope that someone, somewhere, sometime, thinks that his obscure bullshit suggests he’s brighter than, oh, turd.
                      Stupidity, dishonesty, hope, and a player now and then.

                    11. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 12:09AM|#
                      “Yes, from idiots like you. I know East Asia fairly well and shopped in a lot of shops there. I’ve never seen yellow rice for sale and I’ve never heard a customer asking for yellow rice. They prefer white rice, and that’s what they demand. There is no demand for yellow rice.”

                      I cannot believe even a slimy piece of shit like you would post a comment like that.
                      Yes, of course, the parents would prefer their kids would die as opposed to eating a rice with a different color.
                      Now, again, we have the fucking imbecile trueman making a statement which should embarrass any 5-YO, and of course, the fucking imbecile trueman has not one (1) bit of evidence to support his imbecilic claim that parents prefer their kids dies rather than eat rice of a different color!
                      There is stupidity, but some simply surpasses acceptance. Trueman, you are awarded ‘stupid beyond belief’!
                      Oh, and fuck off, slimebag.

                    12. “There is no demand for yellow rice.”

                      Not in East Asia. Take it up with the East Asians if you have a problem with that. There’s not much I can do for you here.

                    13. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 12:13PM|#
                      “Not in East Asia.”

                      Your opinion is NWS.

                    14. mtrueman|4.24.16 @ 12:09AM|#
                      “Iknow East Asia fairly well and shopped in a lot of shops there. I’ve never seen yellow rice for sale and I’ve never heard a customer asking for yellow rice. They prefer white rice, and that’s what they demand. There is no demand for yellow rice.”

                      Your unsupported bullshit/opinions are NWS.

                  2. “at least the fun ones try to act like they want to have a discussion before shitting all over everything.”

                    I spoiled your fun? Don’t care, not interested.

                2. “No ones asked you to change your mind about this. I don’t know where you stand and I’m not interested.”

                  Of course not. You’re just here to see you name in a place more respectable than your pathetic blog. Does anyone from here click on your handle by mistake and end of there? Do you have a job where you’re required top show some level of intelligence to make a living? Does your dog find you as pitiful as we do?
                  Once it’s obvious to all that you’re a lying piece of shit, you always revert to ‘I don’t care if you accept my bullshit’, and then hope that someone thinks you have gotten a diploma from the 8th grade.

                  1. “Does anyone from here click on your handle by mistake and end of there?”

                    Don’t know. Suggest you look into the matter further and see what you can find out if it’s important to you..

                    1. Not important to me. Out of curiosity, I once visited and wasted a minute or so reading how libertarians had (made a fool of you), and presumed only your mom and other relatives would purposely visit you blog.

  22. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 9:48PM|#
    “Exactly which “argument” I’ve made offends you so much and why?”
    Forgive me if I’m offended by your constant dishonesty and ignorance; people speaking on subjects where they are obviously totally ignorant and expecting to be believed are insulting to those who do have some knowledge. You seem to specialize in posting asinine ‘opinions’ where the least bit of knowledge should keep you from doing so, and admit as much since you are not capable of citing one bit of evidence.

    “You’ll have to be more forthcoming if you want to engage. Otherwise I’ll assume you’re just trying to give our Sevo a run for his money in the inane bluster department.”
    Engage? With a pathetic pretender?
    Fuck off.

    1. “Exactly which “argument” I’ve made offends you so much and why?”

      1. mtrueman|4.23.16 @ 10:08PM|#
        “Exactly which “argument” I’ve made offends you so much and why?”

        Is this difficult for you to read?
        “Forgive me if I’m offended by your constant dishonesty and ignorance; people speaking on subjects where they are obviously totally ignorant and expecting to be believed are insulting to those who do have some knowledge. You seem to specialize in posting asinine ‘opinions’ where the least bit of knowledge should keep you from doing so, and admit as much since you are not capable of citing one bit of evidence.”
        I’m sure some remedial reading classes are available near you.

        1. But exactly which “argument” I’ve made offended you so much and why? No need to be coy about it. You can tell me straight out. No need to spare my feelings.

          1. Is this difficult for you to read?
            “Forgive me if I’m offended by your constant dishonesty and ignorance; people speaking on subjects where they are obviously totally ignorant and expecting to be believed are insulting to those who do have some knowledge. You seem to specialize in posting asinine ‘opinions’ where the least bit of knowledge should keep you from doing so, and admit as much since you are not capable of citing one bit of evidence.”

          2. Yes, shitbag, I can return later also. Just keep it up; I’m more than happy to hand you your hat many times.

            1. ” I’m more than happy to hand you your hat many times.”

              Good for you! That’s showing them. Keep up the good fight.

  23. 2?once I saw the draft of 4200 bucks,,,I admit that my sister was like really generating cash in his free time with his COM. My aunt has done this for only 6 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new BMW..N1

    ———— http://www.Buzzmax7.com

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.fox-88.com

  25. ??Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+ http://WWW.Today30.com

  26. Anti-GMO farmers and eaters feel under siege by companies that supply GMO seeds and foods and who influence federal lawmakers and agencies.

    Huh? Whether you produce GMO foods or not is entirely up to you. There are lots of farmers that produce “organic” food.

    What is this middle ground in GMO regulation, I asked, and how do we get there? The middle ground is fairness.

    How about we allow free markets to operate? Farmers who want non-GMO crops plant non-GMO crops, farmers who want GMO crops plant GMO crops, consumers buy whichever they like, and lawmakers stay out of it.

  27. Who is the one harmed when GMO crops pollinate a non-GMO field?
    This is my main problem with GMO, you can’t contain it, and once the genie is out, it’s out.
    If you can prevent your unnatural pollen from getting to my crops – then there’s no harm.
    But you can’t sue me if your pollen contaminates my crop.
    And what’s the harm in labeling? I’ll pay extra for non-GMO food labeled as such.

    1. Who is the one harmed when GMO crops pollinate a non-GMO field?

      No one.

      The rest of your post is derp factor 10

  28. Cutrine Plus

  29. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  30. Great article. Once government seeks to inject itself into the marketplace, all hell breaks loose. One could point to the Federal government food policy and subsidy program as the leading cause for the decline in America’s collective physical and emotional health. Let the consumer vote with their dollars as to which foods are to be sought. If American want GMO, have at it. If they want non-GMO, the market will respond. The beauty of a free market.

  31. Also, it’s important not to place all your faith in government labeling of food products. Look at the ubiquitous “USDA Organic” label on all your produce…it likely causes many to think they’re purchasing and consuming pure goodness from God’s bounty. A closer look reveals that “organic” is nothing to trust. The USDA does not have a staff of inspectors going out to check the level of pesticide in crops. Instead, they pay farmers to act as poll-takers and confirm that their neighbor farmers are using organic practices. No conflict there, I suppose. If that’s not bad enough, the USDA organic label allows for a multitude of chemicals to be used in the farming process. Now, if you think that the USDA will somehow have an effective GMO inspection process, think again.

  32. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  33. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  34. Also, it’s important not to place all your faith in government labeling of food products. Look at the ubiquitous “USDA Organic” label on all your produce…it likely causes many to think they’re purchasing and consuming pure goodness from God’s bounty. A closer look reveals that “organic” is nothing to trust. The USDA does not have a staff of inspectors going out to check the level of pesticide in crops. Instead, they pay farmers to act as poll-takers and confirm that their neighbor farmers are using organic practices. No conflict there, I suppose. If that’s not bad enough, the USDA organic label allows for a multitude of chemicals to be used in the farming process. Now, if you think that the USDA will somehow have an effective GMO inspection process, think again.

    ????? ???
    ???????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.